THE PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB, Through Secretary, Education Departments
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Province of the Punjab against the dismissal of its Civil Revision by the High Court, which upheld a decree for damages in favor of the respondent for damage caused to a property used for running a school. The core legal question concerned whether there was sufficient evidence on record to prove the damage and justify the award of compensation. The Supreme Court held that the case was not one of no evidence, noting that the impugned judgment adequately demonstrated sufficient evidence to support the decree, and further found no substance in the plea of misreading of evidence. The petition for leave to appeal was consequently refused, and the amounts deposited in court along with profits were ordered to be released to the decree-holder. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact supported by evidence on record will not be interfered with in civil revision or leave to appeal proceedings.
- Whether a decree for damages can be sustained when challenged on the ground of no evidence?
- Can a plea of no evidence coexist with a plea of misreading of evidence?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding property damage supported by evidence?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.---Leave to appeal bas been sought against the dismissal by the High Court of the petitioner/defendant's Civil Revision, which had arisen out of a decree passed in respondent's favour for damages. His suit was based on assertion regarding damage done to his property which was with the petitioner for running a school.
2. Learned counsel contended that there was not enough evidence on record to show that the building in question suffered any damage and accordingly the respondent was not entitled to recover any compensation as damages- After hearing him on this question of fact, we do not agree with him that it was a case of no evidence. The impugned judgment does disclose that there was enough evidence to pass the impugned decree in favour of the respondent. The learned counsel also half-heartedly raised the question of misreading of evidence. Besides being a contradictory plea if there was no evidence, there was no question of its misreading. We have not been able to discover, any misreading. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. Amounts/deposits in this Court with profits shall be paid to the decree-holder. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.